1965 (2) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of Shri Lall Singh to pass the detention order.
2. Validity of the detention order under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules.
3. Interpretation of Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Rank and powers of an Additional District Magistrate compared to a District Magistrate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of Shri Lall Singh to pass the detention order:
The appellant was detained under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules by an order passed by Shri Lall Singh on 30/06/1964. The primary contention was that Shri Lall Singh was not the District Magistrate of Amritsar on the date the order was passed, and therefore, he lacked the authority to pass the detention order under the Defence of India Act and the Rules. At the time of the order, Shri Lall Singh was the Additional District Magistrate and was holding the current charge of the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar but was not officially appointed as the District Magistrate under Section 10(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Validity of the detention order under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules:
The learned Advocate General for the State of Punjab argued that the notification delegating powers to all District Magistrates to detain persons under Rule 30 of the Rules was lawful. However, the Court emphasized that, according to Section 3(2)(15)(i) of the Defence of India Act, the authority empowered to detain must not be lower in rank than a District Magistrate. The Court concluded that no officer other than the District Magistrate could pass an order of detention under Rule 30 of the Rules.

3. Interpretation of Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 10(1) of the Code mandates the appointment of a District Magistrate by the State Government. Section 10(2) allows the State Government to appoint an Additional District Magistrate with powers of a District Magistrate under the Code or any other law. However, an Additional District Magistrate does not become the District Magistrate unless officially appointed under Section 10(1). The Court found that no such notification appointing Shri Lall Singh as the District Magistrate of Amritsar was issued, and thus, he was not legally the District Magistrate on 30/06/1964.

4. Rank and powers of an Additional District Magistrate compared to a District Magistrate:
The Court held that an Additional District Magistrate is below the rank of a District Magistrate. Section 10(3) of the Code indicates that an Additional District Magistrate is subordinate to the District Magistrate for certain purposes. The Court concluded that since the power of detention under the Act and the Rules could not be exercised by an officer below the rank of a District Magistrate, Shri Lall Singh, being an Additional District Magistrate, was not authorized to pass the detention order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring the detention order passed by Shri Lall Singh on 30/06/1964 invalid as he was not the District Magistrate of Amritsar, and an Additional District Magistrate is below the rank of a District Magistrate. Consequently, the appellant was directed to be released.